I LOATHE this movie (and the play) - Godspell: A Musical Based on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (1973) Discussion

[–] ruxiegirl 16 years ago

So why come here?

reply

So why come here?

Because it's an open forum about the film, not a private "I Love Godspell" club.

As for me, I love the film's soundtrack album but loathe the visuals of the film.

reply

[–] macklin-1 15 years ago

The are bridges all over the country that are open to the public, why no jump off one.

Macklin Crew

reply

[–] gowland85 15 years ago

The are bridges all over the country that are open to the public, why no jump off one.

What country?

reply

[–] FrodoFan35 15 years ago

Good point. I, too, love the soundtrack, but the film itself doesn't hold up for me. Too silly, and too 60s looking. The stage play was the first professional production I had ever seen, and it was wonderful, but I just didn't care for the film other than hearing the songs.

reply

[–] lroy77 14 years ago

I was first introduced to this by the Broadway soundtrack. Very disappointed they left out my two favorite songs.

Used to dance (if you want to call it that) to the record at pajama parties.

If they ever have a remake (HELLO OUT THERE!), I hope to God they put those two back in the soundtrack!!!

reply

[–] hodie 16 years ago

I'm scared of clowns, but I love the film Godspell.

God save Donald Duck, vaudeville and variety

reply

[–] xerses13 16 years ago

We agree. Is it not amazing that a old musical like 42nd STREET (1933) is more appealing and interesting then this dated nonsense from the 'Flower Children' era. Every time I go into a Natural History Museum I expect these people to be stuffed behind a plate of glass right next to the Neanderthal display. Who had about the same level of personal hygiene.

reply

[–] jaybekay21 16 years ago

I am currently in a production of Godspell and I want to post a section from the foward written by Stephen Schwartz...

"Speaking of 'clowns,' there are often misconceptions about the concept of the clown analogy in Godspell. For instance, sometimes it is misunderstood as the cast being 'hippies' or 'flower children'"

If you actually read the play or payed attention to the movie you would understand that they were not trying to be hippies. They just dressed colorfully to show that they had been enlightened (the disciples begin the show dressed in dark clothing and change after Prepare Ye)

I understand if you dislike a movie/play, but there is no need to insult it because I am sure you have never written ANYTHING that could even come close to the standard of Godspell. Also people are entitled to their opinions, and there is no need to go pushing your own on other people

~Why are entire years strewn on the cutting room floor of memory~

reply

[–] xerses13 16 years ago

[We agree. Is it not amazing that a old musical like 42nd STREET (1933) is more appealing and interesting then this dated nonsense from the 'Flower Children' era. Every time I go into a Natural History Museum I expect these people to be stuffed behind a plate of glass right next to the Neanderthal display. Who had about the same level of personal hygiene.]

jaybekay21; If the above is what you are referring to we did not call them 'hippies' or 'flower children'. The film was referred to as "dated nonsense from the 'Flower Children' era". Which by the way if had not existed neither would had the Play or Film. It is a product of its time and thankfully that time is long gone having experienced it first hand ourselves.

As for "there is no need to insult it". Any critizism of the movie can be interepeted as insulting by those who have absolute faith in its qualities. Which we do not. Other then 'DAY BY DAY' have no fond recollections of the score. No one is infringing upon your entitlement to opinion. If you do not like views counter to yours we suggest you do not read them.

reply

[–] lroy77 14 years ago

My problem with clowns (like in a circus) is all those gags aren't exactly acting like Christians. As the nuns used to say, "Is that the Christian thing to do"? (If only I had a buck for every time I heard THAT one!).

Also, I had a painting of a clown in my bedroom as a kid, and I was terrified that when I wasn't looking it would turn into some horrible monster, like Dorian Gray. Not even my parents knew about this. It haunts me to this day 40 years later.

And aren't clowns supposed to represent evil personified? Maybe that's your problem. IT doesn't count because IT turned out to be some huge bug.

reply

[–] tensaip 10 years ago

The disciples of Jesus were not "Christians", they were Jews.

reply

[–] njiuma 13 years ago

"Speaking of 'clowns,' there are often misconceptions about the concept of the clown analogy in Godspell. For instance, sometimes it is misunderstood as the cast being 'hippies' or 'flower children'"

- yeah, maybe - but the reality is that of all the available ways they could have presented the story, they DID choose a very hippie-like motif in the costumes, music, lyrics, mannerisms etc - which were contemporary for the early 1970's. However, you had Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Aerosmith and other hard rock artists coming out with stronger forms of rock music at that time as well. So, though Schwartz is denying the hippie/flower child assumption apparent in the production, they really do act like mid-sixties era hippies in San Francisco. It is as if they didn't quite want to let go of the '60's in 1973, and they wanted to reach the growing ex-hippies from the Jesus Movement, going strong by then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Movement

* Portraying Jesus as a clown is weird to me, as I am a Born-Again Christian. However, it's not offensive to me, just curious and odd. I like the premise and the music, but I also understand how it could irritate some people as well. The bottom line for me is that Jesus' words of Life and God and Love for all willing to receive Him are presented in a way that many feel the Spirit and receive salvation in Christ through their appreciation of "Godspell".

"I understand if you dislike a movie/play, but there is no need to insult it because I am sure you have never written ANYTHING that could even come close to the standard of Godspell. Also people are entitled to their opinions, and there is no need to go pushing your own on other people."

- The poster is certainly within the IMDb guidelines to share the opinion, and really isn't "pushing" anything - just expressing dislike for the film and music. Also, one does not have to have written ANYTHING AT ALL to dislike "Godspell" - as a consumer of entertainment, one merely has to experience a production and poof! - an opinoin is born... :-)

* I hope that the production of "Godspell" that you were in was enjoyable!

reply

[–] House_of_No 16 years ago

theres a special place in hell for people who dont like " Godspell ".

" Holy crip, he's a crapple ! "

reply

[–] xerses13 16 years ago

No, there is a special place in therapy for those who do.

reply

[–] novastar_6 16 years ago

What's wrong with Godspell? It's a musical, musicals are supposed to be wacky. And you hate mimes? Then you must hate all shows and movies with sex and violence because the mimes started that in their theatre. And what's wrong with clowns? So these guys are dressed in colorful clothes, are they any more or less serious than people in formal suits and church dresses? So they're lighthearted about it, doesn't the Bible talk about rejoice and be exceedingly glad? So why when we talk about God and Jesus and all the good that comes from Them should we be all serious and somber? Is it not possible to speak of the Gospel in good terms on a positive note? That's what they did with this, and it's not twisting the Gospel, it's not rewriting it. People need to stop judging books by their covers.

reply

[–] xerses13 16 years ago

You should read our earlier post (03/27/08) which you obviously did not. We are not against musicals just bad ones which GODSPELL is. It is boring and dated and that has NOTHING to do with its subject matter. Musicals are adult fantasies. They can be "wacky" also sublime and beautiful. We do not recall mentioning Clowns, Mimes, Costuming or a "lighthearted" approach in fact none of those things have anything to do why GODSPELL is bad. It just is.

reply

[–] PurpleCow17 15 years ago

A movie being boring is a valid reason for it to be labeled bad.

A movie being "dated" is not.

A lot of the classic movies reflect the cultural interests and obsessions of their time. Movies made in the 30s and 40s (even ones labeled classics) date themselves pretty clearly.

Also, it's pretty standard for revival casts of the show to update the arrangements and costumes, continuing to adapt to the time and the culture. One of the latest ones featured everyone in T-shirts and jeans.

reply

[–] xerses13 15 years ago

PurpleCow17; That we mentioned the movie was "dated" did not invalidate our comment. It was also BORING which was inferred but you seem to need further clarification. So we state clearly IT WAS BORING with only one (1) song to commend it. As for Classics being "dated" there is a difference between a film of its time and one LOCKED in its time. GODSPELL is clearly the latter.

As for revivals, the revamping of a play is common practice. We are quite aware having attended many ourselves. Unless you think the recent touring groups of OKLAHOMA and 42nd STREET are new productions. Doubt a revival of GODSPELL featuring a cast in "T-shirts and jeans" is really going to improve a mediocre score nor concepts of the stage production best buried with the last of the 'Flower Children'.

reply

[–] PurpleCow17 15 years ago

I'm not saying it's not boring (although I enjoy it). I'm just saying lambasting it as being "dated" is not necessarily a criticism on a movie. No matter how you dress up Oklahoma! and 42nd Street, the plot itself requires that it stick to a specific time period. You can't set Oklahoma! in a modern time period and follow the same plot and characters. (Well, you could, but that would be a risky venture.) Godspell the movie chose a specific time period to reflect, but the script and songs do not lock it into that time period. Now, whether you *like* the songs is a wholly different matter. People can like or dislike the songs as they choose. Though the song arrangements, costumes, and choreography may reflect the chosen time period, the lyrics and melodies and movie's script are fully capable of working with any time period.

I can't see what makes Godspell locked into a time period when taking them out of that period works just as well as the original (be that well or poorly). Isn't that what locks something into a time period -- when removing it destroys its identity?

reply

[–] xerses13 15 years ago

PurpleCow17; What makes GODSPELL locked into its period is that it could not be created in any other. Being set in a particular time period such as OKLAHOMA or 42nd STREET does not invalidate their continued popularity. They could have been made twenty (20) years later and still would have been successes. GODSPELL would not even had existed.

We do not know how many ways we can express how bad it is so you understand. Boring, lackluster score, dated 1960s viewpoints wrapped up in a allegory about the Christ. Yea, those are the marks of a enduring classic. The movie is bad, it was bad in 1972, it is bad now. You are confusing how we interpret the term "dated" as it pertains too this film. It is 1960s tripe.

reply

[–] PurpleCow17 15 years ago

I thoroughly disagree. If Oklahoma! had been written years later, it would be a completely different show. The stereotyped characters played straight, as well as a plot that yields to the songs, is very much a product of 1940s musicals, and most of that faded out by the end of the 1960s. If anything, Oklahoma! is far more locked into its time period due to the very nature of the songs, characters, and plot points. It is loved now (although not by me) because people latched on to something, but it is absolutely 100% a product of its time and could NOT have been written 20 years later, or at least not successfully. By the mid-60s, Sondheim was beginning to come into his own, shows like The Fantasticks and Fiddler on the Roof were coming to light, and the few Oklahoma!-like shows simply weren't getting much attention.

Godspell could have been written at any time. A modern retelling of the gospel of Matthew, with nearly all of the lyrics and book taken directly from Matthew... You can argue the Bible's dated, but you certainly can't argue that it's locked into a 1960s flower children time period, as you say Godspell is. Hardly *any* of the words spoken in Godspell are original. They are all borrowed from much, much, much older texts. And, in fact, many of the song styles and arrangements were borrowed as well -- from 1930s vaudeville routines and southern gospel worship services and burlesque performance. This leaves only things like costuming, choreography and overall concept of the movie as candidates for being dated for the 1960s. The first two I can concede, but the overall concept has been done many times. Jesus Christ Superstar did it just a year earlier - is that dated as well?

Apparently you are using the term "dated" not to mean reflecting, stuck in, or portraying a specific time period exclusively, because this in no way reflects the Godspell as a whole. The movie, yes. The show is not locked into that. And *whether or not* you dislike the movie for portraying the culture it chose, or the show for other reasons, I can see absolutely no reason to claim that the show itself is dated.

reply

[–] xerses13 15 years ago

PurpleCow17; You are trying very hard to move a immovable rock. Our opinion of GODSPELL does not change just because you keep adding paragraphs saying the same things. We have no intention of repeating ourselves. Judging from the revivals of our favorites vis-a-vis yours it appears we have a far firmer grasp of what the public wants and appreciates.

By the way OKLAHOMA set the standard for how to produce a modern musical. Often imitated but seldom duplicated and GODSPELL certainly did not.

reply

[–] PurpleCow17 15 years ago

Hmm.

Again, I don't intend to change your opinion of Godspell as a whole. I'm not going to argue with the fact that you don't *like* it. If something doesn't grip you, it doesn't grip you. But throwing around broad, sweeping statements without anything to back it up other than vague accusations of datedness (which appears to equal boredom in your minds?) do not a fair critique make.

I absolutely agree Oklahoma was important because it changed things up and *did* set a standard. But not every musical does. Just because Godspell failed to reinvent musical theater is also not a fair critique. If that is your measuring stick, that leaves only about six or seven shows that are of any value.

reply

[–] njiuma 13 years ago

"Jesus Christ Superstar did it just a year earlier - is that dated as well?"

- actually, JCS the Film came out AFTER Godspell:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070239/combined

Both films were released in 1973.

Godspell the play came out in 1970, while JCS in 1971 -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godspell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_Superstar

To be fair, as art forms BOTH are extremely dated in their musical styles, clothing, hairstyles, cultural & political references...

But the underlying message of salvation in Jesus Christ is INDEED timeless in both productions.

reply

[–] blacknyellowsquid 13 years ago

I love Jesus Christ Superstar but hate Godspell. It was embarrasing to sit through and watch. So corny and cutesy and ridiculous. I was confused to think that there was anybody who ACTually liked this movie. But after coming on here...I guess there are a lot who do? I just don't get it. at all.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ceebeegee 13 years ago

Godspell is not dated, or it would not be performed so much (it is constantly produced, to the point that a possible Broadway revival was shouted down since there would be no audience--everyone sees it all the time in regional and community theater. I've seen it at least 7-8 times).

However the original production concept *is* dated; the whole mime/clown/Flower Child was very big in the early-mid '70s (I see it as an attempt to domesticate the hippies and make them less intimidating, much as Hair was). The movie is a little cringe-inducing, but the terrific score and Victor Garber's performance are top-rate.

reply

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

ceebeegee; WELL, it has been along time since I have heard from anybody concerning our posts on GODSPELL (1973). Agree, the original production concept "is dated" and that was what we were reviewing as well as the Movie of that time. Also agree about VICTOR GERBER's performance, a actor who has gone on too a splendid career. Though primarily in supporting roles.

As for the score, other then 'Day by Day' it has little to recommend too us.
Compared to OKLAHOMA or SHOWBOAT or even the Andrew Lloyd Webber offerings it is a little thin. Then of course when I was introduced to Musicals you were expected to have more then one (1) or two (2) memorable songs. In addition having spent my teenage years during the 'Sixties' I do not have that fond of remembrance of them. It was 'kind of a drag'! Bad fashions combined with even worse politics, best just forget about it. After all what were it's contributions, the mini-skirt and the GREAT SOCIETY programs. Neither of them very attractive in retrospective. The first should be discarded except for those who work under lamp-posts, the second it's progeny fills our prisons.

reply

[–] njiuma 13 years ago

"After all what were it's contributions, the mini-skirt..."

- on the contrary, the mini-skirt is one of the BEST things to come from the sixties...

along with hot pants, short-shorts, the Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix...

:-)

Up with mini-skirts! (to quote Principal Skinner from "The Simpsons")

reply

[–] ceebeegee 13 years ago

Oh wow, STRONGLY disagree with you re: ALW scores being better than Godspell. For one thing it's an off comparison--ALL of ALW's shows vs. one show? Some of his shows were great (JCS, Joseph) and some were not. But anyway, Godspell is chock full of classics--Oh Bless the Lord My Soul, We Beseech Thee, All for the Best, All Good Gifts, By My Side, On the Willows? The last two alone are heard constantly. I work in theater and I've heard songs from Godspell at MANY auditions. Trust me on this, it is considered a classic score.

And do you honestly reduce the '60s to just...those two things? What about the struggle for civil rights, which led to rights for other disenfranchised groups, like women and gays? What about the great groundswell against the Vietnam War? What about the counterculture? What about all that glorious music?

reply

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

ceebeegee; Yes I reduce the 1960s' too those two (2) things. As for the "glorious music" it does have a place, on a nostalgic radio station. The "counterculture" a-lot of spoiled brats whining how tough they have it.

Now I do not "trust" you on any of your opinions. I lived through it and it largely SUCKED!

reply

[–] activista 10 years ago

@xerses

Yeah,but the '60's were about WAY more than what you reduced it too, and you know it. Just because it sucked for your boring privileged conservative self, it sure as hell dosen't mean that it sucked for everybody else. And I like the movie, hippie vibe and all! So step off with the hate!

reply

[–] xerses13 10 years ago

activista: You can always tell when your right when a Lunatic Leftist, like yourself needs to reply with this typical outrage. Desperately clinging to their false and hypocritical beliefs that the '60s' was some sort of high-point in a moral crusade. Rather than what it really was, a pack of spoiled brats that had it easy and were bored with the status quo.

reply

[–] njiuma 13 years ago

"However the original production concept *is* dated; the whole mime/clown/Flower Child was very big in the early-mid '70s..."

- that's what i meant - it's dated in the sense that the most popular version is the old film from the 1970's. Of course, the localized, reworked and modernized plays are current - and i do believe that was the original intention.

* however, we are on IMDb - so it's about the original film, which is indeed dated.

reply

[–] gowland85 16 years ago

theres a special place in hell for people who dont like " Godspell ".

That's very Christian of you.

reply

[–] hodie 16 years ago

< That's very Christian of you. >

Oh. Because some posters are Christian, you get a free pass for trolling? Well, not all of us are perfect Christians. But it's not you who will judge us.

You can't insult Christians, and then complain that they're not following that faith when they object.

God save Donald Duck, vaudeville and variety

reply

[–] gowland85 16 years ago

You can't insult Christians, and then complain that they're not following that faith when they object.

Yes I can. Jesus told me.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fivefids 15 years ago

I like the sound track of the movie and I like the play but it did not transfer well to the screen. That's my opinion but the music stands regardless.

"Hungary?! That's a country?" Kelly Pickler

reply

[–] bproulx44 16 years ago

Songs are great tho'
Yes it's all for the best.

reply

[–] lilpyro1364 16 years ago

I just want to say that I was in Godspell a couple weeks ago and we didn't have any clown makeup and no stupid acting! we changed alot of stuff in it and made it better and we replaced all the jokes so they were more modern. nothing was dated in ours and we even dressed modern. each one of us were some kind of sterotype like emo, prep, jock, tomboy, nerd,...ect...it was really good!

reply

[–] novastar_6 16 years ago

Then what was the point in even doing Godspell if you changed everything that made it what it was?

reply

[–] ceebeegee 13 years ago

That IS what it is--it was never meant to be ALWAYS done with the Superman tee-shirt and the hippie-dippie face paint. Godspell is different every time--I've seen it *many* time, and worked on it as well, and it has never been done the same way twice.

"What it is" is the idea of deconstructing and reconstructing the gospel of St. Matthew--reinterpreting them in new ways that keep the parables fresh and help communicate the messages. That plus the score.

reply

[–] Samuraibro 13 years ago

That's what you're supposed to do whenever you perform Godspell. If something works better than what was written, or if anyone has good ideas to add to the show, you add them. No two productions are going to be exactly the same.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince With a Thousand Enemies. And whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first, they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, Prince with the swift warning. Be cunning, full of tricks, and your people shall never be destroyed.

There are those who still know- they're still home. We're still home.

Into the woods, then out of the woods-- and happy ever after! (I wish...)

~Proud to be a Gleek!~

You watch me, just watch me. I'm calling, I'm calling. And one day all will know...

La Vie Boheme!

reply

[–] novastar_6 16 years ago

Amen to that, bprolx44, you can't beat their songs.

reply

[–] lilpyro1364 16 years ago

the point of godspell is to spread the word of god, thats what made it what it was! we just changed the old jokes so that kids and teens now-a-days would be into it more! we didnt change any of the songs or lessons, it's still godspell!

reply

[–] novastar_6 16 years ago

What jokes?

reply

[–] lilpyro1364 16 years ago

there were some jokes in it that were really dated...i cant remeber any off the top of my head! but we changed them so they would be more from our time than from the 60s!

reply

[–] novastar_6 16 years ago

Well that's odd because not one damn thing in the whole movie, besides the way Robin and John dress, suggests that it's dated, not to me anyway. Granted I've never seen the play, or read it, so I don't know if there's a difference among the lines in it, I know there's a difference in some characters' names, but that's about all I know of the difference between the movie and the play.

reply

[–] hodie 16 years ago

There were no jokes in the film, just slapstick and horseplay. Then again, it wasn't a comedy.

God save Donald Duck, vaudeville and variety

reply

[–] macklin-1 15 years ago

OMG ... The point of Godspell is not to spread the word of God. Get Real! Godspell is about community ... unitying ... accord to it's authors. I've done several profession companies of Godspel and frankly I thought the movie kinda sucked. Godspell the play was full of pop culture from pop movies, tv and commercials. For the movie, it was generic. They couldn't use all the gimmicks it used in the play because of copyright problems. The music was the best thing about it and although I have no love for lion chow (Christians). The play can be a lot of fun as it is a mixture of musical styles and theatrics. If you are saying Godspell is a bad movie ... yeah, it was! It is really hard to capture the energy that was on the stage because ususally the cast interacted with the audience. I have a copy of the original cast doing it at the cherry lane and it still loses something when transfered to film.

P.S. Godspell is based on a poem about clowns and the innocence of children under the spell of God ... The God Spell (Jesus)! or something like that. The set and it's presentation are about community and how they work together under the spell of unity.

Christians ... please don't use Godspell in your propaganda.

Macklin Crew

reply

[–] ceebeegee 13 years ago

The point of Godspell is not to spread the word of God.

Did you not listen to what they were saying at all? Jesus spends [u]most of the play[/u] telling his disciples what He's there to do, and He is explicitly evangelizing and teaching. Yes, it is true that Godspell can be performed without an evangelistic message (one reason it's so popular and performed so often), just like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe can be enjoyed while overlooking the allegorical Christian overtones. But they are there nonetheless.

Christians ... please don't use Godspell in your propaganda.

Sorry dude--you can't appropriate Christian culture, then get pissy when we take it back. That's like saying Christmas has nothing to do with the birth of Christ. We'll let you play with it, but ultimately it belongs to us. I'll "use Godspell" all I like :)

reply

[–] njiuma 13 years ago

"The point of Godspell is not to spread the word of God. Get Real! Godspell is about community ... unitying ... accord to it's authors."

- yeah, but:

it's all about GOD and JESUS: the Son of God.

Jesus taught about community - unification - love - from the Hebrew GOD. It's based on the Gospel of Matthew...

You can't divorce Godspell from the very thing the story is based on: Jesus and the God of the Bible and the apostles.

And, the word "Godspell" is the archaic spelling of "Gospel". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godspell

So, even if the creators didn't intend to share the Good News of Jesus' love for humanity, they definitely did do that - and certainly moreso than spread a godless message of mere unification of the human race.

C'mon, YOU need to get real, Macklin Crew - "Day by Day" alone is a song of commitment, a prayer and of love for God and His son Jesus Christ.

reply

[–] hodie 16 years ago

<Songs are great tho'
Yes it's all for the best.>

The songs really are great. And so is its spirit. I grew up in the 70s and the film captures the idealism of young people then in such a joyful way. It captured the idealism of the earliest Christians hearing the gospel for the first time. Godspell brings me back to how I felt when I was young. It's totally unsophisticated and heartfelt, and if people can't connect with that, I don't envy them for it.

Street theater was a big part of the 70s as I remember them, from all the time I spent in the Village in those days.

I just re-watched the film tonight, and I just realized that when they sang "All for the Best," they were supposed to be on the top of a skyscraper. I thought it was the Empire State Building, but at the end of the song, it's apparent they were on one of the World Trade Center buildings.

Oh, well. SOMEONE's got to be oppressed. Yes, it's all for the best.

God save Donald Duck, vaudeville and variety

reply

[–] jwalsh67 16 years ago

To each his/her own! I personally have always enjoyed Godspell--the movie as well as the numerous stage productions I have seen. I have also found it a good way to introduce my two young children to the entire concept of Jesus without the monotony of church. My favorite movies are Chinatown, The Godfather, The Exorcist, The Manchurian Candidate, Marathon Man, and The Sting. My taste varies, as you can see, so it's not like I'm stuck on "smug, cutesy" acting. I fully respect, however, that a film like this can grate on people, so again, I say...to each his/her own! I think we all have a few movies on our "having to watch in Hell" list. Mine would include Smokey and the Bandit Part III, Jaws III, and Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.

reply

[–] hodie 16 years ago

<The smug, cutsey acting style makes me sick.>

Thanks for sharing. Hopefully that's all you've got to say, so you don't have to come back.

God save Donald Duck, vaudeville and variety

reply

[–] lucens 15 years ago

I am an ex-Christian and love this movie, and the live show even more. BTW, if you look at Schwartz's web site, the live show is SUPPOSED to be updated every time you do it, to keep it fresh, current and relevant (for instance, imitations of Howard Cosell are rather lost on the current generation; "Lost" references are not).

My favorite songs are "All Good Gifts" and "By My Side", which remind me very much of the idealism we had (so briefly, alas) during my youth in the late 60s/early 70s.

reply

[–] onepotato2 15 years ago

If Hell exists, they'll be forcing me to watch this movie nonstop.

by - xdayton on Sun Mar 23 2008 13:05:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARRRRGGGH. This movie is terrible. It's such suffocating, puerile treacle.
It's the worst movie ever made.

reply

[–] lucens 15 years ago

Then what are you doing here...do you enjoy studying the metaphorical 'dirt' you have expressly stated you DON'T want your nose rubbed in?

Seriously, dude or dudette (as appropriate), why are you here?

reply